<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_14_1426208</id>
	<title>US Cybersecurity Plan Includes Offense</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258211760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>z4ns4stu writes <i>"Shane Harris of the National Journal describes how the US government plans to use, and has successfully used, cyber-warfare to <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs\_20091114\_3145.php">disrupt the communications of insurgents in Iraq</a>. 'In a 2008 article in <em>Armed Forces Journal</em>, Col. Charles Williamson III, a legal adviser for the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency, proposed building a military "botnet," an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks on other machines. Williamson echoed a widely held concern among military officials that other nations are building up their cyber-forces more quickly. "America has no credible deterrent, and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere," he wrote. ... Responding to critics who say that by building up its own offensive power, the United States risks starting a new arms race, Williamson said, "We are in one, and we are losing."'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>z4ns4stu writes " Shane Harris of the National Journal describes how the US government plans to use , and has successfully used , cyber-warfare to disrupt the communications of insurgents in Iraq .
'In a 2008 article in Armed Forces Journal , Col. Charles Williamson III , a legal adviser for the Air Force Intelligence , Surveillance , and Reconnaissance Agency , proposed building a military " botnet , " an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks on other machines .
Williamson echoed a widely held concern among military officials that other nations are building up their cyber-forces more quickly .
" America has no credible deterrent , and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere , " he wrote .
... Responding to critics who say that by building up its own offensive power , the United States risks starting a new arms race , Williamson said , " We are in one , and we are losing .
" ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>z4ns4stu writes "Shane Harris of the National Journal describes how the US government plans to use, and has successfully used, cyber-warfare to disrupt the communications of insurgents in Iraq.
'In a 2008 article in Armed Forces Journal, Col. Charles Williamson III, a legal adviser for the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency, proposed building a military "botnet," an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks on other machines.
Williamson echoed a widely held concern among military officials that other nations are building up their cyber-forces more quickly.
"America has no credible deterrent, and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere," he wrote.
... Responding to critics who say that by building up its own offensive power, the United States risks starting a new arms race, Williamson said, "We are in one, and we are losing.
"'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097704</id>
	<title>The high ground</title>
	<author>Kell Bengal</author>
	<datestamp>1258215900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This makes complete sense to me.  History is replete with examples of leaders who did not learn to exploit new technology, new fields of battle, and paid the price for it.  Expanding your capabilities to use and defend against attacks in information technology is just an extension of the principle of finding a bigger stick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes complete sense to me .
History is replete with examples of leaders who did not learn to exploit new technology , new fields of battle , and paid the price for it .
Expanding your capabilities to use and defend against attacks in information technology is just an extension of the principle of finding a bigger stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes complete sense to me.
History is replete with examples of leaders who did not learn to exploit new technology, new fields of battle, and paid the price for it.
Expanding your capabilities to use and defend against attacks in information technology is just an extension of the principle of finding a bigger stick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30102830</id>
	<title>Suter??? and other Projects?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258209660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... Let's think about this.... at the following addresses we have openly discussed articles about Chinese, or potentially Chinese government linked hacking, cracking, etc.</p><p>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/us/nationalspecial3/09hack.html<br>http://www.chinaherald.net/2009/08/patriotic-hacking-of-australian.html<br>http://www.thedarkvisitor.com/category/china-russia-links/<br>http://www.secureworks.com/research/blog/index.php/2009/01/04/chinese-hackers-talk-hacking/</p><p>We also have folks noting significant vulnerabilities in Chinese systems.</p><p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8094026.stm</p><p>Finally, and probably most importantly the USAF and others discuss US intent to pursue cyberwarfare using elements of airborne ISR.</p><p>http://www.aviationweek.com:80/aw/generic/story\_generic.jsp?channel=awst&amp;id=news/02145p04.xml&amp;headline=Pictures\%20Give\%20Insights\%20Into\%20Stealth\%20Projects<br>http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot1\_20080227.html<br>http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2007/10/suter-jamming-our-good-guys.html<br>http://defense-update.com/features/2008/may08/suter\_v.htm</p><p>I'd observe that although the Col mentioned in the root article indicates that we are in a war (and we probably are).  He probably underestimates the work the US has done, or is doing.  Probably for good reasons.  Although there is a need for rather creative, smart, potentially even otherwise anarchistic folks, there are some common things which can be done without deploying these very "precious" and scarce resources as uniformed troops.</p><p>One other aspect of the discussion is the typical conspiracy theorist nutcases (including with less negativity the ACLU, EFF, EPIC, etc.) who feel that just because some entity of the federal government can use something against a US citizen in some constitutionally prohibited way, that they will.  (The Big Brother Syndrome)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... Let 's think about this.... at the following addresses we have openly discussed articles about Chinese , or potentially Chinese government linked hacking , cracking , etc.http : //www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/us/nationalspecial3/09hack.htmlhttp : //www.chinaherald.net/2009/08/patriotic-hacking-of-australian.htmlhttp : //www.thedarkvisitor.com/category/china-russia-links/http : //www.secureworks.com/research/blog/index.php/2009/01/04/chinese-hackers-talk-hacking/We also have folks noting significant vulnerabilities in Chinese systems.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8094026.stmFinally , and probably most importantly the USAF and others discuss US intent to pursue cyberwarfare using elements of airborne ISR.http : //www.aviationweek.com : 80/aw/generic/story \ _generic.jsp ? channel = awst&amp;id = news/02145p04.xml&amp;headline = Pictures \ % 20Give \ % 20Insights \ % 20Into \ % 20Stealth \ % 20Projectshttp : //www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot1 \ _20080227.htmlhttp : //gentleseas.blogspot.com/2007/10/suter-jamming-our-good-guys.htmlhttp : //defense-update.com/features/2008/may08/suter \ _v.htmI 'd observe that although the Col mentioned in the root article indicates that we are in a war ( and we probably are ) .
He probably underestimates the work the US has done , or is doing .
Probably for good reasons .
Although there is a need for rather creative , smart , potentially even otherwise anarchistic folks , there are some common things which can be done without deploying these very " precious " and scarce resources as uniformed troops.One other aspect of the discussion is the typical conspiracy theorist nutcases ( including with less negativity the ACLU , EFF , EPIC , etc .
) who feel that just because some entity of the federal government can use something against a US citizen in some constitutionally prohibited way , that they will .
( The Big Brother Syndrome )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... Let's think about this.... at the following addresses we have openly discussed articles about Chinese, or potentially Chinese government linked hacking, cracking, etc.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/us/nationalspecial3/09hack.htmlhttp://www.chinaherald.net/2009/08/patriotic-hacking-of-australian.htmlhttp://www.thedarkvisitor.com/category/china-russia-links/http://www.secureworks.com/research/blog/index.php/2009/01/04/chinese-hackers-talk-hacking/We also have folks noting significant vulnerabilities in Chinese systems.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8094026.stmFinally, and probably most importantly the USAF and others discuss US intent to pursue cyberwarfare using elements of airborne ISR.http://www.aviationweek.com:80/aw/generic/story\_generic.jsp?channel=awst&amp;id=news/02145p04.xml&amp;headline=Pictures\%20Give\%20Insights\%20Into\%20Stealth\%20Projectshttp://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot1\_20080227.htmlhttp://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2007/10/suter-jamming-our-good-guys.htmlhttp://defense-update.com/features/2008/may08/suter\_v.htmI'd observe that although the Col mentioned in the root article indicates that we are in a war (and we probably are).
He probably underestimates the work the US has done, or is doing.
Probably for good reasons.
Although there is a need for rather creative, smart, potentially even otherwise anarchistic folks, there are some common things which can be done without deploying these very "precious" and scarce resources as uniformed troops.One other aspect of the discussion is the typical conspiracy theorist nutcases (including with less negativity the ACLU, EFF, EPIC, etc.
) who feel that just because some entity of the federal government can use something against a US citizen in some constitutionally prohibited way, that they will.
(The Big Brother Syndrome)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30100538</id>
	<title>plase do this</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1258191240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then we shall take it over and aim it all govts for a day<br>haha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then we shall take it over and aim it all govts for a dayhaha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then we shall take it over and aim it all govts for a dayhaha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098832</id>
	<title>USA? Prepare for us to take over your puny botnet!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258223340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We get paid by every single big criminal out there.<br>We have decades of experience.<br>We are the best in the world.<br>We wish you goood luck! ^^</p><p>Greetz,</p><p>Your Russian hacker community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We get paid by every single big criminal out there.We have decades of experience.We are the best in the world.We wish you goood luck !
^ ^ Greetz,Your Russian hacker community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We get paid by every single big criminal out there.We have decades of experience.We are the best in the world.We wish you goood luck!
^^Greetz,Your Russian hacker community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098074</id>
	<title>Re:Just give it time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258219260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No country would start a war with the USA. Not now or in twenty years. Just look at the USA's "defense" budget compared to the rest of the world \_total\_.<br><br>They're like "that survivalist guy with a whole basement full of guns, ammo, grenades and a rocket launcher or two". It'll be suicide to go up to his house with a BB gun and shoot at it.<br><br>If anyone wants to hurt the USA they'd have to do it more sneakily - so there's no obvious target for their nukes, cruise missiles, bombers etc.<br><br>Same goes for this "cyberwarfare" thing. A massive concerted attack from your country against the USA will just get you bombed.<br><br>The US media likes to make noise about China/&lt;bogeyman of the day&gt; launching cyberattacks on US servers. The fact is, if the Chinese Gov was really involved, the US Gov will just call the Chinese ambassador in, and say: "Hey stop that now". But really which government is going to do that? If my government wanted to start a war with the USA - cyber or otherwise, a real act of patriotism would be to shoot the idiot leader(s) who came up with that idea.<br><br>The attacks are mainly from a bunch of script kiddies or criminals. If the US Gov is really serious about reducing the attacks they should just go follow the money/control channels, and jail the people responsible if they're in the USA (won't surprise me if many are actually from the USA- after all Sanford Wallace is in the USA, and the BlueHippo thing was in the USA ).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No country would start a war with the USA .
Not now or in twenty years .
Just look at the USA 's " defense " budget compared to the rest of the world \ _total \ _.They 're like " that survivalist guy with a whole basement full of guns , ammo , grenades and a rocket launcher or two " .
It 'll be suicide to go up to his house with a BB gun and shoot at it.If anyone wants to hurt the USA they 'd have to do it more sneakily - so there 's no obvious target for their nukes , cruise missiles , bombers etc.Same goes for this " cyberwarfare " thing .
A massive concerted attack from your country against the USA will just get you bombed.The US media likes to make noise about China/ launching cyberattacks on US servers .
The fact is , if the Chinese Gov was really involved , the US Gov will just call the Chinese ambassador in , and say : " Hey stop that now " .
But really which government is going to do that ?
If my government wanted to start a war with the USA - cyber or otherwise , a real act of patriotism would be to shoot the idiot leader ( s ) who came up with that idea.The attacks are mainly from a bunch of script kiddies or criminals .
If the US Gov is really serious about reducing the attacks they should just go follow the money/control channels , and jail the people responsible if they 're in the USA ( wo n't surprise me if many are actually from the USA- after all Sanford Wallace is in the USA , and the BlueHippo thing was in the USA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No country would start a war with the USA.
Not now or in twenty years.
Just look at the USA's "defense" budget compared to the rest of the world \_total\_.They're like "that survivalist guy with a whole basement full of guns, ammo, grenades and a rocket launcher or two".
It'll be suicide to go up to his house with a BB gun and shoot at it.If anyone wants to hurt the USA they'd have to do it more sneakily - so there's no obvious target for their nukes, cruise missiles, bombers etc.Same goes for this "cyberwarfare" thing.
A massive concerted attack from your country against the USA will just get you bombed.The US media likes to make noise about China/ launching cyberattacks on US servers.
The fact is, if the Chinese Gov was really involved, the US Gov will just call the Chinese ambassador in, and say: "Hey stop that now".
But really which government is going to do that?
If my government wanted to start a war with the USA - cyber or otherwise, a real act of patriotism would be to shoot the idiot leader(s) who came up with that idea.The attacks are mainly from a bunch of script kiddies or criminals.
If the US Gov is really serious about reducing the attacks they should just go follow the money/control channels, and jail the people responsible if they're in the USA (won't surprise me if many are actually from the USA- after all Sanford Wallace is in the USA, and the BlueHippo thing was in the USA ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30102912</id>
	<title>Re:Just give it time</title>
	<author>daedlanth</author>
	<datestamp>1258210680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Energy Parity. It stands true now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy Parity .
It stands true now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy Parity.
It stands true now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30099384</id>
	<title>There are many like it, but this one is MINE</title>
	<author>starshinecruzer</author>
	<datestamp>1258226820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has cropped up on slashdot before. Can't find the article, but it was more hand-wringing about the vulnerabilities of the American network infrastructure to enemy attack.</p><p>Granted, the nature of the Internet is to provide information access from any point in the world, and because of that it can be so easily exploited, commandeered, or broken. But I believe if the $hit ever hit the fan and the Tubes were threatened, those of us who hack and build and kludge the Code would come to its defense. Hundreds of thousands strong, I would wager a citizen-soldier army of l33t coders could well defend this country from its script-kiddie foreign enemies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has cropped up on slashdot before .
Ca n't find the article , but it was more hand-wringing about the vulnerabilities of the American network infrastructure to enemy attack.Granted , the nature of the Internet is to provide information access from any point in the world , and because of that it can be so easily exploited , commandeered , or broken .
But I believe if the $ hit ever hit the fan and the Tubes were threatened , those of us who hack and build and kludge the Code would come to its defense .
Hundreds of thousands strong , I would wager a citizen-soldier army of l33t coders could well defend this country from its script-kiddie foreign enemies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has cropped up on slashdot before.
Can't find the article, but it was more hand-wringing about the vulnerabilities of the American network infrastructure to enemy attack.Granted, the nature of the Internet is to provide information access from any point in the world, and because of that it can be so easily exploited, commandeered, or broken.
But I believe if the $hit ever hit the fan and the Tubes were threatened, those of us who hack and build and kludge the Code would come to its defense.
Hundreds of thousands strong, I would wager a citizen-soldier army of l33t coders could well defend this country from its script-kiddie foreign enemies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101332</id>
	<title>Re:Just give it time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258197540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about what PLA leaders have published in regards to Information Warfare and  ("Informationized Warfare")?</p><p>A good starting point is Unrestricted Warfare.   See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted\_Warfare for links to a PDF version.</p><p>--<br>"This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origins&mdash;war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It requires in those situations where we must counter it a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."<br>John F. Kennedy<br>USMA Graduation Speech, 1962</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about what PLA leaders have published in regards to Information Warfare and ( " Informationized Warfare " ) ? A good starting point is Unrestricted Warfare .
See : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted \ _Warfare for links to a PDF version.-- " This is another type of war , new in its intensity , ancient in its origins    war by guerrillas , subversives , insurgents , assassins ; war by ambush instead of by combat ; by infiltration , instead of aggression , seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him .
It requires in those situations where we must counter it a whole new kind of strategy , a wholly different kind of force , and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training .
" John F. KennedyUSMA Graduation Speech , 1962</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about what PLA leaders have published in regards to Information Warfare and  ("Informationized Warfare")?A good starting point is Unrestricted Warfare.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted\_Warfare for links to a PDF version.--"This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origins—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him.
It requires in those situations where we must counter it a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training.
"John F. KennedyUSMA Graduation Speech, 1962</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098152</id>
	<title>Attack them with viral printers!</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1258219740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/10/one\_printer\_one\_virus\_one/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/10/one\_printer\_one\_virus\_one/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p><p>Hoax or incredible cover-up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/10/one \ _printer \ _one \ _virus \ _one/ [ theregister.co.uk ] Hoax or incredible cover-up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/10/one\_printer\_one\_virus\_one/ [theregister.co.uk]Hoax or incredible cover-up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098494</id>
	<title>So if foreign bank robbers attack American banks..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258221540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...US military should rob foreign banks, too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...US military should rob foreign banks , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...US military should rob foreign banks, too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101328</id>
	<title>Re:Just give it time</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258197480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No country would start a war with the USA. Not now or in twenty years. Just look at the USA's "defense" budget compared to the rest of the world \_total\_..</p></div><p>Um, wake up we are at war on several fronts.</p><p>We have organized entities trying to kill us. ( perhaps not overly effective to date, but that isnt the point )<br>We have organized countries trying to crush our economy.</p><p>How do YOU define war?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No country would start a war with the USA .
Not now or in twenty years .
Just look at the USA 's " defense " budget compared to the rest of the world \ _total \ _..Um , wake up we are at war on several fronts.We have organized entities trying to kill us .
( perhaps not overly effective to date , but that isnt the point ) We have organized countries trying to crush our economy.How do YOU define war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No country would start a war with the USA.
Not now or in twenty years.
Just look at the USA's "defense" budget compared to the rest of the world \_total\_..Um, wake up we are at war on several fronts.We have organized entities trying to kill us.
( perhaps not overly effective to date, but that isnt the point )We have organized countries trying to crush our economy.How do YOU define war?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097768</id>
	<title>preparing for cyber warfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258216500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so how does the average citizen "prepare" for this cyber warfare? just get the latest OS patches or sumthin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so how does the average citizen " prepare " for this cyber warfare ?
just get the latest OS patches or sumthin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so how does the average citizen "prepare" for this cyber warfare?
just get the latest OS patches or sumthin?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098116</id>
	<title>dept.</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1258219560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't this be in the "no-shit-sherlock" department?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't this be in the " no-shit-sherlock " department ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't this be in the "no-shit-sherlock" department?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097780</id>
	<title>The crux of cyberwarfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258216620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bush's authorization of "information warfare," a broad term that encompasses computerized attacks, has been previously reported by National Journal and other publications. But the details of specific operations that specially trained digital warriors waged through cyberspace aren't widely known, nor has the turnaround in the Iraq ground war been directly attributed to the cyber campaign. The reason that cyber techniques weren't used earlier may have to do with the military's long-held fear that such warfare can quickly spiral out of control. Indeed, in the months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, military planners considered a computerized attack to disable the networks that controlled Iraq's banking system, but they backed off when they realized that those networks were global and connected to banks in France.</p></div><p>In traditional warfare, going after your enemy was easy. Your leader tells you where to go, and you go there. One loads up on supplies, munition, and guns. In the face of cyberwarfare, however, things get messy. A lone soldier with a laptop can cross be anywhere in the world causing problems. Hell, he could be sitting in your very country's back yard and you might not even have a clue. Or, in TFA's case, the splash damage ends up screwing up critical, tangentially connected systems.</p><p>Sucks to be the military division that has to track, attack, and manage the diplomatic border issues regarding hackers during times of war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFABush 's authorization of " information warfare , " a broad term that encompasses computerized attacks , has been previously reported by National Journal and other publications .
But the details of specific operations that specially trained digital warriors waged through cyberspace are n't widely known , nor has the turnaround in the Iraq ground war been directly attributed to the cyber campaign .
The reason that cyber techniques were n't used earlier may have to do with the military 's long-held fear that such warfare can quickly spiral out of control .
Indeed , in the months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003 , military planners considered a computerized attack to disable the networks that controlled Iraq 's banking system , but they backed off when they realized that those networks were global and connected to banks in France.In traditional warfare , going after your enemy was easy .
Your leader tells you where to go , and you go there .
One loads up on supplies , munition , and guns .
In the face of cyberwarfare , however , things get messy .
A lone soldier with a laptop can cross be anywhere in the world causing problems .
Hell , he could be sitting in your very country 's back yard and you might not even have a clue .
Or , in TFA 's case , the splash damage ends up screwing up critical , tangentially connected systems.Sucks to be the military division that has to track , attack , and manage the diplomatic border issues regarding hackers during times of war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFABush's authorization of "information warfare," a broad term that encompasses computerized attacks, has been previously reported by National Journal and other publications.
But the details of specific operations that specially trained digital warriors waged through cyberspace aren't widely known, nor has the turnaround in the Iraq ground war been directly attributed to the cyber campaign.
The reason that cyber techniques weren't used earlier may have to do with the military's long-held fear that such warfare can quickly spiral out of control.
Indeed, in the months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, military planners considered a computerized attack to disable the networks that controlled Iraq's banking system, but they backed off when they realized that those networks were global and connected to banks in France.In traditional warfare, going after your enemy was easy.
Your leader tells you where to go, and you go there.
One loads up on supplies, munition, and guns.
In the face of cyberwarfare, however, things get messy.
A lone soldier with a laptop can cross be anywhere in the world causing problems.
Hell, he could be sitting in your very country's back yard and you might not even have a clue.
Or, in TFA's case, the splash damage ends up screwing up critical, tangentially connected systems.Sucks to be the military division that has to track, attack, and manage the diplomatic border issues regarding hackers during times of war.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101302</id>
	<title>Re:Wait what?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258197300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well that's just it you can't build a razor wire wall and laugh as people cut themselves trying to get through it.</p></div><p>In war, yes, you can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's just it you ca n't build a razor wire wall and laugh as people cut themselves trying to get through it.In war , yes , you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's just it you can't build a razor wire wall and laugh as people cut themselves trying to get through it.In war, yes, you can.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097758</id>
	<title>Reminiscent of the Cold War</title>
	<author>meustrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258216500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me, this is reminiscent of our arms race with the Soviet Union. Military officials were convinced that the Soviets were always one step ahead of them the entire time, even though the only time they got to a technology before us was the launch of Sputnik, which wasn't really a military achievement anyway (we were all decades behind spy satellites or something like SDI). If they didn't think the Soviets were building something better than what we had (which would have been supported by their intelligence gathering) they never stopped using that argument to support large standing armies and rapid technological arms buildup.<br>
<br>
And when the USSR collapsed, we learned that the entire time they had been at least two steps behind us.<br>
<br>
My opinion is that our infrastructure is in such disrepair that if hostile powers had the capability of cyperterrorism, they would have to practice extreme restraint not to use it to put the entire nation in a blackout for a month. If that means they're waiting for a combined-arms assault, then offense is not going to help us when our "military botnet" doesn't have any electricity to run on.<br>
<br>
The recent scare about cyberterrorism causing blackouts in Brazil, <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/11/11/1426256/How-Vulnerable-Is-Our-Power-Grid?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">only to find that those blackouts were more likely due to natural causes in a poorly maintained electrical grid</a> [slashdot.org], supports my point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , this is reminiscent of our arms race with the Soviet Union .
Military officials were convinced that the Soviets were always one step ahead of them the entire time , even though the only time they got to a technology before us was the launch of Sputnik , which was n't really a military achievement anyway ( we were all decades behind spy satellites or something like SDI ) .
If they did n't think the Soviets were building something better than what we had ( which would have been supported by their intelligence gathering ) they never stopped using that argument to support large standing armies and rapid technological arms buildup .
And when the USSR collapsed , we learned that the entire time they had been at least two steps behind us .
My opinion is that our infrastructure is in such disrepair that if hostile powers had the capability of cyperterrorism , they would have to practice extreme restraint not to use it to put the entire nation in a blackout for a month .
If that means they 're waiting for a combined-arms assault , then offense is not going to help us when our " military botnet " does n't have any electricity to run on .
The recent scare about cyberterrorism causing blackouts in Brazil , only to find that those blackouts were more likely due to natural causes in a poorly maintained electrical grid [ slashdot.org ] , supports my point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, this is reminiscent of our arms race with the Soviet Union.
Military officials were convinced that the Soviets were always one step ahead of them the entire time, even though the only time they got to a technology before us was the launch of Sputnik, which wasn't really a military achievement anyway (we were all decades behind spy satellites or something like SDI).
If they didn't think the Soviets were building something better than what we had (which would have been supported by their intelligence gathering) they never stopped using that argument to support large standing armies and rapid technological arms buildup.
And when the USSR collapsed, we learned that the entire time they had been at least two steps behind us.
My opinion is that our infrastructure is in such disrepair that if hostile powers had the capability of cyperterrorism, they would have to practice extreme restraint not to use it to put the entire nation in a blackout for a month.
If that means they're waiting for a combined-arms assault, then offense is not going to help us when our "military botnet" doesn't have any electricity to run on.
The recent scare about cyberterrorism causing blackouts in Brazil, only to find that those blackouts were more likely due to natural causes in a poorly maintained electrical grid [slashdot.org], supports my point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097700</id>
	<title>Just give it time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258215900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In ten or twenty years USA won't be a country worthy of attacking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In ten or twenty years USA wo n't be a country worthy of attacking ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In ten or twenty years USA won't be a country worthy of attacking ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097820</id>
	<title>Some of the ways theey're taking down email</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1258216980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...proposed building a military "botnet," an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks on other machines.</p></div><p>Dear Terrorist:<br>I am a Jihadist in Nigeria with $10 million and if I put it into a bank, those infidel Americans will freeze it. If you send me $5,000 to open an account in the Cayman Islands, I will put you in for half!</p><p>Or the other one:<br>Dear Terrorist:<br>Do want a LARGER penis? With a LARGER penis, you'll be more of a man and be able to take out those infidel Americans! Buy V1@gr4 from us! We will make you BIGGER and STRONGER! Allah be praised!</p><p>or: </p><p>Make BIG  MONEY selling AK-47s from home! Make even more with IEDs! </p><p>Kill Americans!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...proposed building a military " botnet , " an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks on other machines.Dear Terrorist : I am a Jihadist in Nigeria with $ 10 million and if I put it into a bank , those infidel Americans will freeze it .
If you send me $ 5,000 to open an account in the Cayman Islands , I will put you in for half ! Or the other one : Dear Terrorist : Do want a LARGER penis ?
With a LARGER penis , you 'll be more of a man and be able to take out those infidel Americans !
Buy V1 @ gr4 from us !
We will make you BIGGER and STRONGER !
Allah be praised ! or : Make BIG MONEY selling AK-47s from home !
Make even more with IEDs !
Kill Americans !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...proposed building a military "botnet," an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks on other machines.Dear Terrorist:I am a Jihadist in Nigeria with $10 million and if I put it into a bank, those infidel Americans will freeze it.
If you send me $5,000 to open an account in the Cayman Islands, I will put you in for half!Or the other one:Dear Terrorist:Do want a LARGER penis?
With a LARGER penis, you'll be more of a man and be able to take out those infidel Americans!
Buy V1@gr4 from us!
We will make you BIGGER and STRONGER!
Allah be praised!or: Make BIG  MONEY selling AK-47s from home!
Make even more with IEDs!
Kill Americans!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097666</id>
	<title>what about anonymous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258215540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who needs a botnet when you have a labotomized group of internet hooligans who only need a target worth harassing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who needs a botnet when you have a labotomized group of internet hooligans who only need a target worth harassing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who needs a botnet when you have a labotomized group of internet hooligans who only need a target worth harassing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098172</id>
	<title>All because of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258219860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- In AD 2010...<br>- War was beginning...<br>- What happen?<br>- We get Kenyan...<br>- Somebody set up us the Dems<br>- What??<br>- Main screen turn on...<br>- It's you!<br>- A shout out to you gentlemen...<br>- You all have acted...stupidly.<br>- But don't jump to conclusions.<br>- All your base are belong to us.<br>- You are on the way to socialism!<br>- What you say??<br>- You have no chance to survive - make your time.<br>- Vote out "Libs"<br>- Impeach "Libs"<br>- For Great Justice!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- In AD 2010...- War was beginning...- What happen ? - We get Kenyan...- Somebody set up us the Dems- What ?
? - Main screen turn on...- It 's you ! - A shout out to you gentlemen...- You all have acted...stupidly.- But do n't jump to conclusions.- All your base are belong to us.- You are on the way to socialism ! - What you say ?
? - You have no chance to survive - make your time.- Vote out " Libs " - Impeach " Libs " - For Great Justice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- In AD 2010...- War was beginning...- What happen?- We get Kenyan...- Somebody set up us the Dems- What?
?- Main screen turn on...- It's you!- A shout out to you gentlemen...- You all have acted...stupidly.- But don't jump to conclusions.- All your base are belong to us.- You are on the way to socialism!- What you say?
?- You have no chance to survive - make your time.- Vote out "Libs"- Impeach "Libs"- For Great Justice!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101230</id>
	<title>Oh... :-\</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1258196700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I saw "offense" I envisioned a couple crackers in Eastern Europe getting a drone launched Hellfire missile up the rear. Oh well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw " offense " I envisioned a couple crackers in Eastern Europe getting a drone launched Hellfire missile up the rear .
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw "offense" I envisioned a couple crackers in Eastern Europe getting a drone launched Hellfire missile up the rear.
Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098688</id>
	<title>no deterrent???</title>
	<author>markov\_chain</author>
	<datestamp>1258222620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about "cease your cyberattacks or we unplug your country from the internet"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about " cease your cyberattacks or we unplug your country from the internet "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about "cease your cyberattacks or we unplug your country from the internet"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098532</id>
	<title>I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream?</title>
	<author>Linktoreality</author>
	<datestamp>1258221720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this fairly similar to how that short-story got started? The major governments of the world start building up their computers for war, only for each system to eventually link itself to the others and become an emergent A.I.? Granted, the computers in the story were for running real-world warfare, not cyber-attacks, but still...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this fairly similar to how that short-story got started ?
The major governments of the world start building up their computers for war , only for each system to eventually link itself to the others and become an emergent A.I. ?
Granted , the computers in the story were for running real-world warfare , not cyber-attacks , but still.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this fairly similar to how that short-story got started?
The major governments of the world start building up their computers for war, only for each system to eventually link itself to the others and become an emergent A.I.?
Granted, the computers in the story were for running real-world warfare, not cyber-attacks, but still...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30099018</id>
	<title>Re:Wait what?</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1258224300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems to me the first mistake to be made is to treat a digital front as if it was a front in an actual war. All you're doing it guarding secrets most often, or sometimes vital services.</p></div><p>There are two fundamental issues that bug me whenever I see these stories.  The first is treating information security like physical security.  And the second is whether this really is warfare.</p><p>To begin with, there are different rules in play for physical security than information security.  Physical security is governed by the rules of physics.  There's not much we can do to alter that.  We can discover new ways to make use of these rules but we can't fundamentally alter them.  Information security is governed by the rules of the systems and protocols we use.  And while there are inherent limitations involved in these, one still has the ability to change systems and protocols if needed.  With information security, you can change the basic rules by which you operate.</p><p>This comes to play in different ways.  If you're providing security for a building, there's only so many people that are able to attack it at any given time.  Doing so requires the cost of either establishing a physical presence (showing up) or investing in the appropriate infrastructure (spy satalites).  Protecting a server involves an almost infinite number of potential attackers who have very low investment (nmap from the comfort of the local cafe / living room).  You can't physically deny entry to a building but you can make it very difficult to do so with various barriers, locks, etc. - often with exponential cost for each mechanism.  But with physical security, you can make attempting to bypass those barriers costly.  So deterrence becomes a very important factor.  With information security, it is possible to select a system and protocol that does make it effectively impossible to gain access to a logical location with limited cost.  But it is very difficult to induce a cost with a network attack (outside of tar pits and cycles needed to brute-force attacks).</p><p>The second concern is referring to these activities as war.  "Cyberwarfare" is no more war than business.   Like comparing physical security to information security, the comparison to war offers some conceptual convenience; basic mindset and theory.  But ultimately we're really talking about espionage with different tools than a battlefield with different weapons.  Battlefield fundamentals are rooted in that physical space which information security only partly touches.  Espionage has a lot better set of memes to deal with not only those occasional intersections with physical space, but also the nature of data and information system security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me the first mistake to be made is to treat a digital front as if it was a front in an actual war .
All you 're doing it guarding secrets most often , or sometimes vital services.There are two fundamental issues that bug me whenever I see these stories .
The first is treating information security like physical security .
And the second is whether this really is warfare.To begin with , there are different rules in play for physical security than information security .
Physical security is governed by the rules of physics .
There 's not much we can do to alter that .
We can discover new ways to make use of these rules but we ca n't fundamentally alter them .
Information security is governed by the rules of the systems and protocols we use .
And while there are inherent limitations involved in these , one still has the ability to change systems and protocols if needed .
With information security , you can change the basic rules by which you operate.This comes to play in different ways .
If you 're providing security for a building , there 's only so many people that are able to attack it at any given time .
Doing so requires the cost of either establishing a physical presence ( showing up ) or investing in the appropriate infrastructure ( spy satalites ) .
Protecting a server involves an almost infinite number of potential attackers who have very low investment ( nmap from the comfort of the local cafe / living room ) .
You ca n't physically deny entry to a building but you can make it very difficult to do so with various barriers , locks , etc .
- often with exponential cost for each mechanism .
But with physical security , you can make attempting to bypass those barriers costly .
So deterrence becomes a very important factor .
With information security , it is possible to select a system and protocol that does make it effectively impossible to gain access to a logical location with limited cost .
But it is very difficult to induce a cost with a network attack ( outside of tar pits and cycles needed to brute-force attacks ) .The second concern is referring to these activities as war .
" Cyberwarfare " is no more war than business .
Like comparing physical security to information security , the comparison to war offers some conceptual convenience ; basic mindset and theory .
But ultimately we 're really talking about espionage with different tools than a battlefield with different weapons .
Battlefield fundamentals are rooted in that physical space which information security only partly touches .
Espionage has a lot better set of memes to deal with not only those occasional intersections with physical space , but also the nature of data and information system security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me the first mistake to be made is to treat a digital front as if it was a front in an actual war.
All you're doing it guarding secrets most often, or sometimes vital services.There are two fundamental issues that bug me whenever I see these stories.
The first is treating information security like physical security.
And the second is whether this really is warfare.To begin with, there are different rules in play for physical security than information security.
Physical security is governed by the rules of physics.
There's not much we can do to alter that.
We can discover new ways to make use of these rules but we can't fundamentally alter them.
Information security is governed by the rules of the systems and protocols we use.
And while there are inherent limitations involved in these, one still has the ability to change systems and protocols if needed.
With information security, you can change the basic rules by which you operate.This comes to play in different ways.
If you're providing security for a building, there's only so many people that are able to attack it at any given time.
Doing so requires the cost of either establishing a physical presence (showing up) or investing in the appropriate infrastructure (spy satalites).
Protecting a server involves an almost infinite number of potential attackers who have very low investment (nmap from the comfort of the local cafe / living room).
You can't physically deny entry to a building but you can make it very difficult to do so with various barriers, locks, etc.
- often with exponential cost for each mechanism.
But with physical security, you can make attempting to bypass those barriers costly.
So deterrence becomes a very important factor.
With information security, it is possible to select a system and protocol that does make it effectively impossible to gain access to a logical location with limited cost.
But it is very difficult to induce a cost with a network attack (outside of tar pits and cycles needed to brute-force attacks).The second concern is referring to these activities as war.
"Cyberwarfare" is no more war than business.
Like comparing physical security to information security, the comparison to war offers some conceptual convenience; basic mindset and theory.
But ultimately we're really talking about espionage with different tools than a battlefield with different weapons.
Battlefield fundamentals are rooted in that physical space which information security only partly touches.
Espionage has a lot better set of memes to deal with not only those occasional intersections with physical space, but also the nature of data and information system security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097778</id>
	<title>This Sounds Like</title>
	<author>boudie2</author>
	<datestamp>1258216620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A job for Bill Gates, smartest man in the world. Only he can catch Osama Bin Laden and keep the world safe for democracy.
Isn't this all sounding like the story line to a bad movie?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A job for Bill Gates , smartest man in the world .
Only he can catch Osama Bin Laden and keep the world safe for democracy .
Is n't this all sounding like the story line to a bad movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A job for Bill Gates, smartest man in the world.
Only he can catch Osama Bin Laden and keep the world safe for democracy.
Isn't this all sounding like the story line to a bad movie?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098194</id>
	<title>Re:Reminiscent of the Cold War</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258219920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was in the best interests of everyone in the military to say that the Russians had better everything. Take a lesson from scotty, "It can't be done cap'n, but I'll have it running in 3hours."<br> <br> <br>Also, the military gets paid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was in the best interests of everyone in the military to say that the Russians had better everything .
Take a lesson from scotty , " It ca n't be done cap'n , but I 'll have it running in 3hours .
" Also , the military gets paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was in the best interests of everyone in the military to say that the Russians had better everything.
Take a lesson from scotty, "It can't be done cap'n, but I'll have it running in 3hours.
"  Also, the military gets paid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097954</id>
	<title>Re:Reminiscent of the Cold War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258218180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it's true that we severely overestimated their number of ICBMs and their production capabilities, there were a number of places where the Soviets were ahead of us:</p><p>* fighter aircraft maneuverability<br>* Lunakhod (decades before the Mars rovers)<br>* tanks<br>* Sputnik</p><p>And Sputnik was indeed a military coup. If you've seen the boost vehicles blowing up while we tried to match them, I'd ask you to consider the panic that that created.  Sputnik proved the Soviet capability to put a package into a low orbit - kind of a major part of ICBMs. The ensuing space race was a thinly veiled response to improve our boost vehicle and command and control capabilities.</p><p>Sputnik spawned the NDEA of 1958 -</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Defense\_Education\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Defense\_Education\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I agree with the spirit of your post - just the details need polishing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's true that we severely overestimated their number of ICBMs and their production capabilities , there were a number of places where the Soviets were ahead of us : * fighter aircraft maneuverability * Lunakhod ( decades before the Mars rovers ) * tanks * SputnikAnd Sputnik was indeed a military coup .
If you 've seen the boost vehicles blowing up while we tried to match them , I 'd ask you to consider the panic that that created .
Sputnik proved the Soviet capability to put a package into a low orbit - kind of a major part of ICBMs .
The ensuing space race was a thinly veiled response to improve our boost vehicle and command and control capabilities.Sputnik spawned the NDEA of 1958 -http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National \ _Defense \ _Education \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ] I agree with the spirit of your post - just the details need polishing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's true that we severely overestimated their number of ICBMs and their production capabilities, there were a number of places where the Soviets were ahead of us:* fighter aircraft maneuverability* Lunakhod (decades before the Mars rovers)* tanks* SputnikAnd Sputnik was indeed a military coup.
If you've seen the boost vehicles blowing up while we tried to match them, I'd ask you to consider the panic that that created.
Sputnik proved the Soviet capability to put a package into a low orbit - kind of a major part of ICBMs.
The ensuing space race was a thinly veiled response to improve our boost vehicle and command and control capabilities.Sputnik spawned the NDEA of 1958 -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Defense\_Education\_Act [wikipedia.org]I agree with the spirit of your post - just the details need polishing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097730</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258216140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's perfectly fine when American "news" channels show American troops killing Afghanis or Iraqis?</p><p>You've got a filthy double standard, paco. It's hypocrisy like yours that has made America and American foreign policy a joke around the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's perfectly fine when American " news " channels show American troops killing Afghanis or Iraqis ? You 've got a filthy double standard , paco .
It 's hypocrisy like yours that has made America and American foreign policy a joke around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's perfectly fine when American "news" channels show American troops killing Afghanis or Iraqis?You've got a filthy double standard, paco.
It's hypocrisy like yours that has made America and American foreign policy a joke around the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097982</id>
	<title>Re:Reminiscent of the Cold War</title>
	<author>Adambomb</author>
	<datestamp>1258218480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But But But, I want my Kuang Mark 11 to slot into my deck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But But But , I want my Kuang Mark 11 to slot into my deck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But But But, I want my Kuang Mark 11 to slot into my deck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098058</id>
	<title>Perfectly Logical</title>
	<author>antirelic</author>
	<datestamp>1258219140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is only so much you can do on the defensive. The US has been fairly defensive in protecting the IT infrastructure of our society and our government networks. As everyone knows, you can only keep someone out for so long before they finally figure out how to get through. The best way to keep your networks protected is by eliminating the threat. The old adage "a good defense is a great offense" holds true till this day.</p><p>That line of thinking may piss off the peacenicks and the neo-marxists, but anyone who has ever had to deal with a chronic problem of coming under attack from foreign entities with no recourse, knows that the available solutions are just as bad as the problem (having back bone providers hobble foreign ISP's access results in reduced commerce). The internet is the modern "ocean" of the colonial period. Pirates like to hide in lawless (or hostile to the target) regions for protection. I dont think these internet pirates should be provided any different protection than the pirates of the Caribbean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only so much you can do on the defensive .
The US has been fairly defensive in protecting the IT infrastructure of our society and our government networks .
As everyone knows , you can only keep someone out for so long before they finally figure out how to get through .
The best way to keep your networks protected is by eliminating the threat .
The old adage " a good defense is a great offense " holds true till this day.That line of thinking may piss off the peacenicks and the neo-marxists , but anyone who has ever had to deal with a chronic problem of coming under attack from foreign entities with no recourse , knows that the available solutions are just as bad as the problem ( having back bone providers hobble foreign ISP 's access results in reduced commerce ) .
The internet is the modern " ocean " of the colonial period .
Pirates like to hide in lawless ( or hostile to the target ) regions for protection .
I dont think these internet pirates should be provided any different protection than the pirates of the Caribbean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is only so much you can do on the defensive.
The US has been fairly defensive in protecting the IT infrastructure of our society and our government networks.
As everyone knows, you can only keep someone out for so long before they finally figure out how to get through.
The best way to keep your networks protected is by eliminating the threat.
The old adage "a good defense is a great offense" holds true till this day.That line of thinking may piss off the peacenicks and the neo-marxists, but anyone who has ever had to deal with a chronic problem of coming under attack from foreign entities with no recourse, knows that the available solutions are just as bad as the problem (having back bone providers hobble foreign ISP's access results in reduced commerce).
The internet is the modern "ocean" of the colonial period.
Pirates like to hide in lawless (or hostile to the target) regions for protection.
I dont think these internet pirates should be provided any different protection than the pirates of the Caribbean.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097686</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Stargoat</author>
	<datestamp>1258215780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, why wouldn't it include an offense?  If someone is putting videos of nutjobs cutting the heads off of people, we damn well ought to be able to take their servers down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , why would n't it include an offense ?
If someone is putting videos of nutjobs cutting the heads off of people , we damn well ought to be able to take their servers down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, why wouldn't it include an offense?
If someone is putting videos of nutjobs cutting the heads off of people, we damn well ought to be able to take their servers down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30100508</id>
	<title>obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258191060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"proposed building a military "botnet," an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks"</p><p>wait no obligatory skynet tag?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" proposed building a military " botnet , " an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks " wait no obligatory skynet tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"proposed building a military "botnet," an army of centrally controlled computers to launch coordinated attacks"wait no obligatory skynet tag?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097706</id>
	<title>Wait what?</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1258215960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"America has no credible deterrent, and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere,"</p></div><p>Well that's just it you can't build a razor wire wall and laugh as people cut themselves trying to get through it. It seems to me the first mistake to be made is to treat a digital front as if it was a front in an actual war. All you're doing it guarding secrets most often, or sometimes vital services. Best way to protect them is  physical separation from civilian networks. I know my friend who does communication translation for the military works on a network where they mirror a hand full of sites (wiki among them) every week and host them in house simply because having the network connected to the internet at large is just to risky.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" America has no credible deterrent , and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere , " Well that 's just it you ca n't build a razor wire wall and laugh as people cut themselves trying to get through it .
It seems to me the first mistake to be made is to treat a digital front as if it was a front in an actual war .
All you 're doing it guarding secrets most often , or sometimes vital services .
Best way to protect them is physical separation from civilian networks .
I know my friend who does communication translation for the military works on a network where they mirror a hand full of sites ( wiki among them ) every week and host them in house simply because having the network connected to the internet at large is just to risky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"America has no credible deterrent, and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere,"Well that's just it you can't build a razor wire wall and laugh as people cut themselves trying to get through it.
It seems to me the first mistake to be made is to treat a digital front as if it was a front in an actual war.
All you're doing it guarding secrets most often, or sometimes vital services.
Best way to protect them is  physical separation from civilian networks.
I know my friend who does communication translation for the military works on a network where they mirror a hand full of sites (wiki among them) every week and host them in house simply because having the network connected to the internet at large is just to risky.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097952</id>
	<title>Botnet?</title>
	<author>omni123</author>
	<datestamp>1258218120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A military botnet?

No problem; just throw all the federally owned computers in to another one, I'm sure Conficker doesn't mind sharing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A military botnet ?
No problem ; just throw all the federally owned computers in to another one , I 'm sure Conficker does n't mind sharing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A military botnet?
No problem; just throw all the federally owned computers in to another one, I'm sure Conficker doesn't mind sharing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097798</id>
	<title>Re:what about anonymous?</title>
	<author>Talisman</author>
	<datestamp>1258216800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I think you know why not Anonymous.</p><p>NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I think you know why not Anonymous.NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I think you know why not Anonymous.NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098100</id>
	<title>Very ironic.</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1258219500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all very ironic, as I mention here:<br> <a href="http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005991.html" title="listcultures.org">http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005991.html</a> [listcultures.org] </p><p>So, the US military, once again, in a tremendous burst of irony, is developing ways to create artificial scarcity on the network of abundance. And they are justifying this to have new ways to further harm the people upset about being harmed by the illegal and immoral US invasion of Iraq.<br>"Illegal, Immoral Invasion of Iraq to Carve up the Middle East"<br> <a href="http://www.mediamonitors.net/abdullahvawda16.html" title="mediamonitors.net">http://www.mediamonitors.net/abdullahvawda16.html</a> [mediamonitors.net] </p><p>So, one illegal and immoral act begets another. One artificial scarcity begets another. One arms race, fueled by war profits, begets another.<br>
  <a href="http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm" title="lexrex.com">http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm</a> [lexrex.com] </p><p>How do we resolve this seemingly intractable problem?</p><p>Mutual security?<br> <a href="http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton\_deutsch/?nid=2430" title="beyondintractability.org">http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton\_deutsch/?nid=2430</a> [beyondintractability.org] </p><p>Intrinsic security?<br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle\_Power" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle\_Power</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Humor?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br> <a href="http://www.humorproject.com/doses/default.php?number=1" title="humorproject.com">http://www.humorproject.com/doses/default.php?number=1</a> [humorproject.com] </p><p>Jacque Fresco comments on some of this, as far as the problems of way being profitable, as I note here:<br> <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/3b7889054e4b4317" title="google.com">http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/3b7889054e4b4317</a> [google.com] </p><p>So, after the US military gets all these shiny new cyberweapons, who are they going to use them against next? Who will be the next people labeled "insurgents"? Or goaded into it by suffering from other military-enforced artificial scarcities?</p><p>Anyway, people ask me why I don't just post to a blog, and prefer to use email, and that's part of it. All web archives and other websites may be taken out once that "arms race" really gets going and military doctrinal TINA rules: "There is no alternative (but to destroy everything)".</p><p>Generally, a core theme of what I write is the irony of post-scarcity technology like computers and robots or nuclear power in the hands of people still thinking in terms of scarcity, like fighting over products or oil instead of producing products with robots and producing energy with nuclear power or solar power made using advanced materials. Example:<br> <a href="http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005929.html" title="listcultures.org">http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005929.html</a> [listcultures.org] <br> <a href="http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005498.html" title="listcultures.org">http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005498.html</a> [listcultures.org] </p><p>As I mention in that last one, for an example of post-scarcity thinking, I think our taxes would go *down* if as I proposed  here, everyone in the USA who wanted one was given a "free" safer luxury  electric car:<br>"Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user"<br> <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en" title="google.com">http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en</a> [google.com] <br>Basically, defense costs, pollution mediation costs, and medical costs would all go down enormously, thus lowering taxes.</p><p>More ironically, it turns out, it takes more electricity to make a gallon of gas than for an electric car to go the same distance, according to this:<br>
  <a href="http://www.evnut.com/gasoline\_oil.htm" title="evnut.com">http://www.evnut.com/gasoline\_oil.htm</a> [evnut.com] <br>"So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline, or I can get 41 miles (at 300wh/mile) in my RAV4EV just using the energy to refine that g</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all very ironic , as I mention here : http : //listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch \ _listcultures.org/2009-November/005991.html [ listcultures.org ] So , the US military , once again , in a tremendous burst of irony , is developing ways to create artificial scarcity on the network of abundance .
And they are justifying this to have new ways to further harm the people upset about being harmed by the illegal and immoral US invasion of Iraq .
" Illegal , Immoral Invasion of Iraq to Carve up the Middle East " http : //www.mediamonitors.net/abdullahvawda16.html [ mediamonitors.net ] So , one illegal and immoral act begets another .
One artificial scarcity begets another .
One arms race , fueled by war profits , begets another .
http : //www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm [ lexrex.com ] How do we resolve this seemingly intractable problem ? Mutual security ?
http : //www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton \ _deutsch/ ? nid = 2430 [ beyondintractability.org ] Intrinsic security ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle \ _Power [ wikipedia.org ] Humor ?
: - ) http : //www.humorproject.com/doses/default.php ? number = 1 [ humorproject.com ] Jacque Fresco comments on some of this , as far as the problems of way being profitable , as I note here : http : //groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/3b7889054e4b4317 [ google.com ] So , after the US military gets all these shiny new cyberweapons , who are they going to use them against next ?
Who will be the next people labeled " insurgents " ?
Or goaded into it by suffering from other military-enforced artificial scarcities ? Anyway , people ask me why I do n't just post to a blog , and prefer to use email , and that 's part of it .
All web archives and other websites may be taken out once that " arms race " really gets going and military doctrinal TINA rules : " There is no alternative ( but to destroy everything ) " .Generally , a core theme of what I write is the irony of post-scarcity technology like computers and robots or nuclear power in the hands of people still thinking in terms of scarcity , like fighting over products or oil instead of producing products with robots and producing energy with nuclear power or solar power made using advanced materials .
Example : http : //listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch \ _listcultures.org/2009-November/005929.html [ listcultures.org ] http : //listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch \ _listcultures.org/2009-November/005498.html [ listcultures.org ] As I mention in that last one , for an example of post-scarcity thinking , I think our taxes would go * down * if as I proposed here , everyone in the USA who wanted one was given a " free " safer luxury electric car : " Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user " http : //groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2 ? hl = en [ google.com ] Basically , defense costs , pollution mediation costs , and medical costs would all go down enormously , thus lowering taxes.More ironically , it turns out , it takes more electricity to make a gallon of gas than for an electric car to go the same distance , according to this : http : //www.evnut.com/gasoline \ _oil.htm [ evnut.com ] " So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline , or I can get 41 miles ( at 300wh/mile ) in my RAV4EV just using the energy to refine that g</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all very ironic, as I mention here: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005991.html [listcultures.org] So, the US military, once again, in a tremendous burst of irony, is developing ways to create artificial scarcity on the network of abundance.
And they are justifying this to have new ways to further harm the people upset about being harmed by the illegal and immoral US invasion of Iraq.
"Illegal, Immoral Invasion of Iraq to Carve up the Middle East" http://www.mediamonitors.net/abdullahvawda16.html [mediamonitors.net] So, one illegal and immoral act begets another.
One artificial scarcity begets another.
One arms race, fueled by war profits, begets another.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm [lexrex.com] How do we resolve this seemingly intractable problem?Mutual security?
http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton\_deutsch/?nid=2430 [beyondintractability.org] Intrinsic security?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle\_Power [wikipedia.org] Humor?
:-) http://www.humorproject.com/doses/default.php?number=1 [humorproject.com] Jacque Fresco comments on some of this, as far as the problems of way being profitable, as I note here: http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/3b7889054e4b4317 [google.com] So, after the US military gets all these shiny new cyberweapons, who are they going to use them against next?
Who will be the next people labeled "insurgents"?
Or goaded into it by suffering from other military-enforced artificial scarcities?Anyway, people ask me why I don't just post to a blog, and prefer to use email, and that's part of it.
All web archives and other websites may be taken out once that "arms race" really gets going and military doctrinal TINA rules: "There is no alternative (but to destroy everything)".Generally, a core theme of what I write is the irony of post-scarcity technology like computers and robots or nuclear power in the hands of people still thinking in terms of scarcity, like fighting over products or oil instead of producing products with robots and producing energy with nuclear power or solar power made using advanced materials.
Example: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005929.html [listcultures.org]  http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005498.html [listcultures.org] As I mention in that last one, for an example of post-scarcity thinking, I think our taxes would go *down* if as I proposed  here, everyone in the USA who wanted one was given a "free" safer luxury  electric car:"Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user" http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en [google.com] Basically, defense costs, pollution mediation costs, and medical costs would all go down enormously, thus lowering taxes.More ironically, it turns out, it takes more electricity to make a gallon of gas than for an electric car to go the same distance, according to this:
  http://www.evnut.com/gasoline\_oil.htm [evnut.com] "So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline, or I can get 41 miles (at 300wh/mile) in my RAV4EV just using the energy to refine that g</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097846</id>
	<title>This Is Not Flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love when commments get modded down simply for expressing an opinion the moderator doesn't like.</p><p>Did you guys really expect no offensive strategies?  I think nerds on this site need to get real about the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love when commments get modded down simply for expressing an opinion the moderator does n't like.Did you guys really expect no offensive strategies ?
I think nerds on this site need to get real about the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love when commments get modded down simply for expressing an opinion the moderator doesn't like.Did you guys really expect no offensive strategies?
I think nerds on this site need to get real about the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30103438</id>
	<title>Re:what about anonymous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258217340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>inb4 personal army... too late...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>inb4 personal army... too late.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inb4 personal army... too late...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097784</id>
	<title>A credible deterrent?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1258216680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"America has no credible deterrent, and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere,"</p></div><p>And who's to blame for that?</p><p>The goverment allowed hundreds of thousands of IT jobs to be shipped overseas, we no longer have the labor resources to secure our domestic infrastructure. The government allowed private businesses to copyright and patent everything, there's no further incentive for innovation from the private sector in this country. We wind up spending what limited resources are available for R&amp;D reinventing the wheel constantly. Because we've handed so much control over to multinational authorities like ICANN, we no longer can impliment policy decisions. Where is IPv6? We're facing a resource shortage, but not only that, IPv6 provides for much wider deployment of encryption, and yet here we are dragging our feet. Why is that?</p><p>If this were any kind of a priority, I think we'd see the government making an honest and sincere effort to fix some of these problems. But they aren't. Which tells me that cybersecurity "problems" are a paper tiger. There won't be any changes until a few thousand people die from a "cyber-terror" attack. Our government has always been reactive in nature -- preferring to procrastinate and delay until after the bomb explodes, and then swoop in to justify its relevance and 35\% tax rates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" America has no credible deterrent , and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere , " And who 's to blame for that ? The goverment allowed hundreds of thousands of IT jobs to be shipped overseas , we no longer have the labor resources to secure our domestic infrastructure .
The government allowed private businesses to copyright and patent everything , there 's no further incentive for innovation from the private sector in this country .
We wind up spending what limited resources are available for R&amp;D reinventing the wheel constantly .
Because we 've handed so much control over to multinational authorities like ICANN , we no longer can impliment policy decisions .
Where is IPv6 ?
We 're facing a resource shortage , but not only that , IPv6 provides for much wider deployment of encryption , and yet here we are dragging our feet .
Why is that ? If this were any kind of a priority , I think we 'd see the government making an honest and sincere effort to fix some of these problems .
But they are n't .
Which tells me that cybersecurity " problems " are a paper tiger .
There wo n't be any changes until a few thousand people die from a " cyber-terror " attack .
Our government has always been reactive in nature -- preferring to procrastinate and delay until after the bomb explodes , and then swoop in to justify its relevance and 35 \ % tax rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"America has no credible deterrent, and our adversaries prove it every day by attacking everywhere,"And who's to blame for that?The goverment allowed hundreds of thousands of IT jobs to be shipped overseas, we no longer have the labor resources to secure our domestic infrastructure.
The government allowed private businesses to copyright and patent everything, there's no further incentive for innovation from the private sector in this country.
We wind up spending what limited resources are available for R&amp;D reinventing the wheel constantly.
Because we've handed so much control over to multinational authorities like ICANN, we no longer can impliment policy decisions.
Where is IPv6?
We're facing a resource shortage, but not only that, IPv6 provides for much wider deployment of encryption, and yet here we are dragging our feet.
Why is that?If this were any kind of a priority, I think we'd see the government making an honest and sincere effort to fix some of these problems.
But they aren't.
Which tells me that cybersecurity "problems" are a paper tiger.
There won't be any changes until a few thousand people die from a "cyber-terror" attack.
Our government has always been reactive in nature -- preferring to procrastinate and delay until after the bomb explodes, and then swoop in to justify its relevance and 35\% tax rates.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097760</id>
	<title>Can't happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258216500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have friends working for the Navy who are taking &gt; 6 months just to order a fscking desktop computer.</p><p>I doubt the DoD is capable of pulling this off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have friends working for the Navy who are taking &gt; 6 months just to order a fscking desktop computer.I doubt the DoD is capable of pulling this off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have friends working for the Navy who are taking &gt; 6 months just to order a fscking desktop computer.I doubt the DoD is capable of pulling this off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30103428</id>
	<title>Old hat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258217280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already have both CNA (computer network attack) and CND-AR (computer net defense, attack response).  Have for ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already have both CNA ( computer network attack ) and CND-AR ( computer net defense , attack response ) .
Have for ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already have both CNA (computer network attack) and CND-AR (computer net defense, attack response).
Have for ages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097914</id>
	<title>Strangelove</title>
	<author>Hemogoblin</author>
	<datestamp>1258217820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr President, we must not allow a script-kiddie gap!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr President , we must not allow a script-kiddie gap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr President, we must not allow a script-kiddie gap!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30102912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30100538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30099018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30103438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1426208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30102912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30099018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30101302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30100538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30103438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30098832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1426208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1426208.30097768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
